|
woke wedding drone posted:and leaves the way open for some Geert Wilders type punk to keep the movement going. Who could that possibly be?
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:I wanted to xpost this from USPOL thread, but here is Mark Blyth talking about Trump growing authoritarian preferences in the public. Rather than talk about the psychology behind authoritarian, he explicitly uses the point of view of an economist to see how decline of well being may lead to authoritarian tendencies. God I love Mark Blyth. His stuff on austerity is great too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Boksi posted:Hey PJ, what would you rate the odds of Trump flat-out trying to punch or otherwise physically assault Hillary mid-debate at? 15%-25%. Its entirely possible, but not the likeliest of outcomes. Virtually a 100% chance that he blows his top though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Mr. hair gel fake paul atreides needs to get investigated for fraud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Pictured: Twinks for Trump  Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Any gay man who is talks about his enthusiasm for "twinks" is likely a reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Hi Jane. Earlier on in the thread I raised doubts about time as a factor in how highly compacted the Trump supporters could be when I asked you a question. You were right and I was wrong though as always I do reserve my right to question. I just feel that your experience in this area vastly outpaces my own when it comes to this election and just how crazy it is. I'm guessing that tomorrow at the debate the rails come off. He can't get strong enough love from his followers and so he turns up the hate. It's going to get rough. Not that I think he will, but is it possible that he may drop out? What could possibly force him to drop out other than say, his health? Or is he just so high on his own supply and desperate for more that he's going to redline his campaign until it totally runs out of gas both pre and post election?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:What pisses me off about all this is it was a chance to say America had a referendum on bigotry and it failed. Now there's no chance of that: Trump's character and behavior finally overwhelmed his message, and his unprecedentedly bad showing in November will have nothing to do with his policies. Nobody ran away from him when he proposed a religious test for entry to the US, nobody ran away when he said Mexican judges can't be impartial, but now everybody has to run away because of some Access Hollywood poo poo. If anything Trump's flameout strengthens the idea that bigotry is an OK part of public discourse, and leaves the way open for some Geert Wilders type punk to keep the movement going. I think it's as much good old American racism denial as it ia timing. Trump's incompetence was fully exposed over the last week with the debate and all his other scandals. When he started openly bragging about sexual assault, the already termite-eaten supports of Trump's campaign fell out. On top of targeting white women, it removes all pretense of the final "moral" position the GOP had. Now the GOP has finally realized that they cannot salvage Trump. If there is any justice, it will already be too late and the part will tear itself apart in the face of this monster it created. If Trump had higher numbers or we had longer before the election, it might be swept under the rug like everything else, but after all his other failures it's the last straw. I doubt there'd be so much reaction to a video of him calling Obama the n-word and demanding to see him hang, however.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:I wanted to xpost this from USPOL thread, but here is Mark Blyth talking about Trump growing authoritarian preferences in the public. Rather than talk about the psychology behind authoritarian, he explicitly uses the point of view of an economist to see how decline of well being may lead to authoritarian tendencies. we're hosed
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This would be surprising to me, at least in the UK we have a pretty entrenched resistance to new parties, establishment counts for a lot and I can see the republicans undergoing a pretty major purge of the party brand and try to reclaim it instead. America has vast amounts of money and power entrenched in its established parties and I think they'd probably spend a while in the wilderness before surrendering the party. We used to have a Whig party here, before our Civil War and the emergence of the Republican Party. Who also used to be the upstarts saying Black Lives Matter in 1860 btw. Things are always subject to change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Of all the horrible things Trump has done and said, especially regarding women, why is "grab them by the pussy" the thing that causes outsize dysphoria/dissonance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Pinback posted:Of all the horrible things Trump has done and said, especially regarding women, why is "grab them by the pussy" the thing that causes outsize dysphoria/dissonance? I think PJ already had an insightful explanation of that. Prester Jane posted:So I've been thinking about the "grab them by the pussy" video and what it means. There is some good and bad here, but mostly good. In response to the same question, Endorph in the USPol thread offered a different explanation that I also think could be worth mentioning. Endorph posted:it's nothing like that Which also explains why the Khan incident and Alicia Machado, in addition to this, seem to blow up more than Trump's usual awful statements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Pinback posted:Of all the horrible things Trump has done and said, especially regarding women, why is "grab them by the pussy" the thing that causes outsize dysphoria/dissonance? I would say it is bcause the comment isn't Don being a commentator, but an actor. For example, let's say I said: I think women should be subjected to sexual assault as punishment for... Robbery, I don't know. (Please bear with me, this is in no way what I believe). Now, that is a repulsive statement, and I should be chastised and hated for it, but I have said it as a hypothetical, it is a spoken word and is limited as much as a spoken word is (this is not to discount the harm that spoken word can do). Now let's say I said: I have sexually assaulted a woman as punishment for robbery. I made a declaration that now makes me an actor in the situation, not a commentator. I admit that I did this, and it's now much, much worse. People can now readily empathise with victims when the horrible thing being discussed has been confirmed NOT by the victim, but the perpetrator. Trump being dismissive and crude re. women is one thing. Supporters can more readily disassociate woman they admire from those comments by saying: Well, Trump wouldn't use it in that situation. Trump saying: I sexually assaulted women and can get away with it because I am famous removes the 'shield' of hypothetics. They can now more readily think of Trump approaching these women, licking his lips. Edit: You can see it in the way that some apologists are trying to make it sound like the problem is with the word pussy, not with the actual statement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This would be surprising to me, at least in the UK we have a pretty entrenched resistance to new parties, establishment counts for a lot and I can see the republicans undergoing a pretty major purge of the party brand and try to reclaim it instead. America has vast amounts of money and power entrenched in its established parties and I think they'd probably spend a while in the wilderness before surrendering the party. The United States' political field is one of change. When we started out, we didn't even have the vaunted Constitution that always gets dragged out. We were formed under the Articles of Confederation, which were kinda crappy and neutered any power the federal government had in favor of more independence for the states. The government couldn't even force the states to give up tax money to it. It's quite likely that if the Articles remained, the nascent United States of America would have long ago fragmented into independent nations and European colonies. The Constitution was basically throwing out everything and starting over fresh. At first, we also didn't have political parties. But in the 1790s political power was divided between two major camps: Alexander Hamilton (supported by bankers and businessmen for his fiscal policies) and Thomas Jefferson (supported by farmers and Southerners who supported states' rights). When Hamilton formed the Federalist Party around him, Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party around himself as a counter. Despite George Washington's plea not to divide up into political parties, his words were unheeded. Political parties have power that individuals lack. But things can always change. The United States lacks the thousands of years of historic "American" civilization that Europe has with its native populations, having only been formed from Europeans on someone else's land about 240 years ago. You can't look at New York City and talk about how white people lived there since 120 AD and here's where the old tribal boundaries used to be. American culture has always emphasized freedom, independence, and rebellion in teaching its national myth, as we're not that many generations away from being founded through bloody revolution. The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists both faded away in the 19th century, as they lost power that they were unable to regain. Infighting led to prominent politicians jumping ship and forming new parties, like the Whigs, Republicans, and Democrats. The Republican Party and Democratic Party that we see today actually used to have completely reversed positions on things like race, which is why Abraham Lincoln was a Republican (and the modern GOP always loved to trot out Lincoln's presence in their party as "proof" that they were the party that supported racial minorities, never mind that the party today isn't the party from the 1860s and all of their behavior when it comes to race has proven otherwise). There's always going to be new rebels causing a stir in the United States. This is why despite its age, the Republicans disintegrating into a new party or two isn't really unprecedented. The Democratic-Republicans died out because their members split four ways and nobody could agree on a central tenant of their party any more, and everyone split up to make their own parties or join others. This is exactly what's going on with the modern Republicans: the constant pandering to right-wing extremists and crazy fringe groups has accidentally formed a huge base of those right-wing extremists and crazy fringe groups when the people at the top of the ladder are more moderate, rich, white conservatives. The people who vote are no longer the people who have power, which is a very dangerous place for a party to be in. In a less stable society, the Republicans could respond to this by just shooting the people they don't like. But what we're seeing instead is a sort of civil war within the GOP, as the base and heads clash. The only two options at this point are: A) The GOP somehow kicks out all the millions of people who don't think like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush and returns to the old status quo. B) The GOP falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
atomicgeek posted:We used to have a Whig party here, before our Civil War and the emergence of the Republican Party. Who also used to be the upstarts saying Black Lives Matter in 1860 btw. Things are always subject to change. So did the UK, however I would argue that merely fielding a really lovely candidate is probably not enough to sink a party. E: ^^^ Right wing politics (and all American politics) are fundamentally oligarchical, I don't really think popular support signifies greatly what the course of the party in the future will be. In the UK we've been having a big row about a populist leader of the opposition for the past year, the prevailing attitude from people who don't like it is basically "we need to stop the membership having a say in candidate selection" which I imagine the Republicans would also go for. I should point out there is no real opposition to shutting out the membership from the leadership other than from pro-membership parts of the leadership, if we didn't have a leadership that was pro-populism this would already have happened by now. So I think it's both possible and probable that the republican leadership will just find a way to ignore the bits of the membership it doesn't like and force them to vote for whoever they present, because it's not like the raving xenophobes are going to vote for the democrats. They don't need to kick them out, they just need to prevent them from making decisions while still harvesting their money and manpower, which is hardly a novel concept to a political party. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:At first, we also didn't have political parties. But in the 1790s political power was divided between two major camps: Alexander Hamilton (supported by bankers and businessmen for his fiscal policies) and Thomas Jefferson (supported by farmers and Southerners who supported states' rights). seriously?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
The US Whig Party was an aberration. It was never very strong, and only arose after the Democratic-Republicans managed to eliminate all organized opposition for an extended time period, which made the US effectively a single-party country for a while, about 8 or 9 years. In the 18th Congress for instance, the one elected in 1822, the Senate was 89.6% Democratic-Republican and the House was 88.7% Democratic-Republican. The Whigs only managed to exist from 1833 to 1854, and were effectively already dead from 1850. They'd only been barely able to agree on platforms for their whole history, and a refusal to decided on their position for slavery was among the biggest reasons they fell apart - the following Republican party made one of its core tenets opposition to slavery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:seriously? Nowadays "states' rights" is just a dogwhistle but back then it was a legitimate issue. And slavery wasn't even the main "states' right" on their minds at that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:seriously? It actually refers to Jefferson being adamently anti-federalist. Which, considering the absolute shitshow of the Articles of Confederation, I've never understood why that was supposedly a positive for him. Still, when we were just founding the country and coming off the original colonies being semi-independent states there really was legitimate debate about the extent of federal authority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:It actually refers to Jefferson being adamently anti-federalist. Which, considering the absolute shitshow of the Articles of Confederation, I've never understood why that was supposedly a positive for him. Still, when we were just founding the country and coming off the original colonies being semi-independent states there really was legitimate debate about the extent of federal authority. At the time America was deliberately trying to be different than empires run by monarchs. One of the biggest problem causers of the colonial era was the amount of power held centrally. This was the period where absolute monarchies and ridiculously powerful central imperial governments were ruining everything for everybody else. The other side of that was that it was actually pretty difficult for a central government to do much directly given that this was even before trains existed. The idea was that you'd let the states mostly rule themselves and come to agreements on whatever they needed to do nationwide, which was not supposed to be much. It backfired terribly which was why the federation was dissolved and replaced with the constitution we have now. Turns out that letting states only follow federal law when they felt like it is a bad idea and you will never, ever get 13 states to vote unanimously on anything. Note that Washington didn't even want to run for president and also quit after two terms even though he easily could have won a third. These guys were deliberately avoiding the problems of a strong central government run by an elite social class caused. This is why articles of nobility explicitly don't, and can't, exist in America. There were very good reasons that debate ran on and was fiercely fought. Then we turned into an imperialistic nation run by economic elites instead of social ones. Oops. That however started before the civil war. Strengthening the federal government became a necessity after the states decided to start ignoring it and doing whatever they wanted again. You're still seeing some of that now with states finding weasely ways to get around supreme Court decisions. Generally "states rights" ended up really meaning "nah uh you aren't the boss of me!" when the federal government made a decision somebody didn't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There were very good reasons that debate ran on and was fiercely fought. Then we turned into an imperialistic nation run by economic elites instead of social ones. Oops. That however started before the civil war. Strengthening the federal government became a necessity after the states decided to start ignoring it and doing whatever they wanted again. You're still seeing some of that now with states finding weasely ways to get around supreme Court decisions. Generally "states rights" ended up really meaning "nah uh you aren't the boss of me!" when the federal government made a decision somebody didn't like. ... America has been run by economic elites from the very start. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/the-net-worth-of-the-amer_n_825939.html One could also argue that America has also been imperialist from the start - immediately taking the land east of the Mississippi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Hey Jane, you were right, and it was very uncomfortable to watch
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
I was expecting him to be more explosive. The way he stalked around like a shark was pretty offputting though. Well, I guess he did vow to put Hillary in jail to her face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Before he mellowed out, there were a few times I was expecting him to swing at her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
At one point he was huffing and puffing and I thought he was going to have a heart attack. I actually feel bad for Hilary because it was lower than low and he just would vomit insanity at her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Hillary did well at first, but eventually made the mistake of trying to engage or react to him on any level. Her only real option to win was to basically treat him like he does not exist, which is basically impossible to do in that situation. Once you engage him you lose because he will always beat you down with endless half truths and accusations. Hillary did well, but I hope she enters the third debate having learned the lesson to not try and actually argue with him or react to him. Also tonight marks the point where all this stops being funny real loving quick. Bannon and Stone's tactics of unrepentant viciousness were on display tonight, and they worked well enough that they bought Trump some breathing room and will bring a few of the fence sitters back into Trump's sphere for a while longer. Trump is going to look for any way to ratchet up the overall viciousness of the campaign. He will also being an escalating series of threats building off his threat to have Hillary investigated and jailed if he is President. Trump's supporters are going to begin to cross some very terrifying lines in reaction to these developements. I don't know how else to say this, so I will just be blunt, We are all going to a dark place as a country now, but no matter how dark it gets just remember that this is only temporary. This will be bad for a while, but it will not last forever. We will get through this and emerge as a better people. Short term though is not going to be pretty. Trump has just enough credibility now to really stir some monumental poo poo up. The GOP will not survive if they do not universally part ways with him right away. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
CNN's headline is "Scorched Earth" and this is how it opens:quote:(CNN)Politics in America changed Sunday night. Trump won. I mean he was an insane gibbering idiot but Hillary didn't have much presence. And anyways, even if he never makes it to the White House he has made American politics are gross as he is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:At one point he was huffing and puffing and I thought he was going to have a heart attack. I actually feel bad for Hilary because it was lower than low and he just would vomit insanity at her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Also tonight marks the point where all this stops being funny real loving quick. Bannon and Stone's tactics of unrepentant viciousness were on display tonight, and they worked well enough that they bought Trump some breathing room and will bring a few of the fence sitters back into Trump's sphere for a while longer. Trump is going to look for any way to ratchet up the overall viciousness of the campaign. He will also being an escalating series of threats building off his threat to have Hillary investigated and jailed if he is President. Trump's supporters are going to begin to cross some very terrifying lines in reaction to these developements. I really hope you're wrong about this, but you haven't been wrong about much else so far. Ugh. I hate this so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I don't know how else to say this, so I will just be blunt, We are all going to a dark place as a country now, but no matter how dark it gets just remember that this is only temporary. This will be bad for a while, but it will not last forever. We will get through this and emerge as a better people. It's still basically over for Trump himself, right? I had hoped he'd explode tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:It's still basically over for Trump himself, right? I had hoped he'd explode tonight. Its absolutely over for him yes. But he is going to take a larger chunk of people with him now. He was building to explode until at about the 25 min mark or so he managed to overwhelm Hillary and get her to engage him, that is when the tide really shifted. He emotionally overwhelmed her and it took her quite some time to recover.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Trump won. Only if you are an idiot, no news organization except maybe Fox is going to push that angle and he looked like he was doing coke and wandering around looking for the shattered wreckage of his once happy life. Dude said he'd jail his opponent, loving news agencies will jump on that [On account of, you know, often being the opponents of candidates.]. There hasn't been a real risk of Trump winning in....basically ever if you meaningfully looked at the polls. The risk is now and always been what he's doing to the Republican base just by existing. e: And the polls on debate performance are coming out and Trump is massively losing in most of them. Mulva fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:At the time America was deliberately trying to be different than empires run by monarchs. This more than anything is (at least in my opinion) the source of a lot of the various quirks with the original design of the American government and the body of writing which surrounds it. To really understand most of the sick political and social burns one needs to understand how European governments of the time were structured, how they worked, and especially how they interacted with the population (by which most of the Founding Fathers would have generally meant some combination of educated white male who owns some kind of property where other people, and possibly he, work for his enrichment). Or, if you're an American, your knowledge of this and about everything else in your own nation's history is a loose framework of poo poo that people have said to you in conversations or lectures, the primary purpose of which is supporting your innate conviction that you're allowed to do whatever the gently caress you want. e: Mulva posted:Only if you are an idiot I feel like this a critical flaw in your position, since the vast majority of Americans who are Narrativists are not only idiots, but are at this very moment salivating over how amazing Trump's performance was (I can say this without having actually seen the debate). Also, in the last month or so I've seen posts in a couple of other threads talking about Inner and Outer Narratives, or mentioning 'what Prester Jane would call Narrativists,' so clearly ideas are leaking out of this thread (which I find cool). ee: I used to work pretty closely with a fairly dedicated Trump supporter (he quit his job as a CNC Machinist to join the family business flipping houses in rural Oregon towns), and we basically had nonstop political-social conversations starting from week one, when I mentioned that I'm generally a socialist. That was more or less miserable, but I kind of which he was still around just so I could hear the poo poo that I'm sure he's spouting to everyone who will listen by this point. LonsomeSon fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Hillary did well at first, but eventually made the mistake of trying to engage or react to him on any level. Her only real option to win was to basically treat him like he does not exist, which is basically impossible to do in that situation. Once you engage him you lose because he will always beat you down with endless half truths and accusations. Hillary did well, but I hope she enters the third debate having learned the lesson to not try and actually argue with him or react to him. I deeply, deeply hope you are wrong about this, but agree that his supporters will go completely insane soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Interestingly, the snap polls are still saying he lost. I think it's quite possible this results in him re-energizing his supporters but might not even prevent the GOP rout at the next scandal set.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Quick question Jane, how long do you think this ugliness is going to go on? Do you expect stuff like the wildlife refuge takeover or things that might actually matter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I deeply, deeply hope you are wrong about this, but agree that his supporters will go completely insane soon. The big, big, big problem is that the GOP's voters have been fed, for a very long time, the idea that the federal government has no right to exist and must be destroyed. They view the fed as an inherently corrupt behemoth that only exists to make money vanish into the pockets of politicians while ignoring everything else it does. They've aligned themselves with literal fascists and people who are itching for another revolution. They've managed to create this ideal that less government = more freedom and more freedom = good in every possible way. Ergo, we must make the government continually tinier. They have a rather significant chunk of the population believing that Democrats are all god awful tyrants that just want to make more things illegal every year. They're going to ban Christianity, take your guns, and let the terrorists win, you just wait! Reality is irrelevant; they believe they're stalwart freedom fighters just defending what they believe in against the red hordes. I'm pretty sure PJ is right; this is going to be ugly. I get the feeling that violence is going to erupt when Hillary inevitably wins. The GOP has painted itself into a corner with a monkey's paw wish but it's the rest of us that are paying for it in the end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Just finished reading the thread (or at least Jane's post and a few others) and I have to thank you Jane for getting these ideas down. They were incredibly readable and easy to understand for me at least. It actually finally got me some answers to questions that have been bothering me for a long time, and actually connected some ideas rattling around my head for a long time (specifically how people are obsessed with stories, and applying their lives to the framework of a narrative). I really appreciate now being able to understand what goes on in the heads of a people who have eluded me for most of my lifetime. These compacted Narrativists still scare me, but understanding how they are likely their own downfall is something of a comforting thought (if only I could keep myself from imagining doomsday scenarios that you assure won't happen). I really hope you can get into contact with a somebody who's respected in academia at some point in your life; because your ideas would be valuable to understanding the climate and forces shaping our current political world. Especially as a warning of what happens when you play with this kind of fire. Just one question though, at some point back in the thread you mentioned that there are going to be some arguements about the limits of free speech in the near future. What do you mean by that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Also tonight marks the point where all this stops being funny real loving quick. Bannon and Stone's tactics of unrepentant viciousness were on display tonight, and they worked well enough that they bought Trump some breathing room and will bring a few of the fence sitters back into Trump's sphere for a while longer. Trump is going to look for any way to ratchet up the overall viciousness of the campaign. He will also being an escalating series of threats building off his threat to have Hillary investigated and jailed if he is President. Trump's supporters are going to begin to cross some very terrifying lines in reaction to these developements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:34
|
|